Concurrent findings on actual metered electricity consumption warrant no interference under Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction.

The petitioner held a 25 kW high-tension electricity connection for its industrial unit.

It applied for disconnection on 19 April 2018, while the electricity meter was physically removed by officials of Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. (UPCL) on 31 May 2019.

UPCL raised a demand of ₹1,05,056 towards electricity charges for the period from 19 April 2018 to 20 April 2019.

The petitioner challenged the demand before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003; the complaint was dismissed on 30 August 2019.

Its subsequent representation before the Ombudsman under Section 42(6) was also rejected on 31 October 2019.

The petitioner thereafter invoked the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

It contended that its industrial unit had been shut down by the State Pollution Control Board on 22 September 2016 and that UPCL had delayed removal of the meter.

UPCL relied on the MRI report, which showed consistent electricity consumption after the disconnection application.

1. Whether the demand raised by UPCL for electricity consumed between 19 April 2018 and 20 April 2019 was sustainable despite the petitioner’s application for disconnection and the delayed physical removal of the meter

2. Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 with the concurrent findings of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and the Ombudsman upholding the demand based on actual metered consumption

3. Whether the petitioner could rely, for the first time in the writ proceedings, on the alleged closure of its industrial unit pursuant to the Pollution Control Board’s order dated 22 September 2016

The Court applied Sections 42(5) and 42(6) of the Electricity Act, 2003, which provide for adjudication of consumer grievances first by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and thereafter by the Electricity Ombudsman.

It also applied Article 227 of the Constitution, under which the High Court exercises limited supervisory jurisdiction and does not ordinarily reappreciate evidence or disturb concurrent factual findings unless there is jurisdictional error, perversity, or a comparable ground for interference.

The Court further proceeded on the principle that a demand supported by actual metered consumption may be upheld notwithstanding administrative delay in removal of the meter, where the competent consumer forums have considered the relevant material.

The Court noted that both the Forum and the Ombudsman had examined the relevant circumstances and concluded that the demand corresponded to the petitioner’s actual metered consumption.

Although the Forum had expressed displeasure at UPCL’s failure to remove the meter promptly after the disconnection application, that administrative lapse did not invalidate the charges supported by the MRI consumption history.

The petitioner’s reliance on the alleged closure of the industrial unit in 2016 could not assist it because the contention had not been raised before either of the statutory forums and was not pleaded in the writ petition; moreover, the MRI report indicated consistent consumption during the disputed period.

In the absence of perversity or legal error in the concurrent findings, no ground for interference under Article 227 was established.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.